the treaty.

tried by their minister or consul, "following in this
respect the usage observed toward other Franks;" and
the American "dragoman" (not the minister or con-
sul) is to be present at the trial of any litigation or
dispute between the subjects of the Porte and citizens
of the United States. But how is it in the case of a
"dispute" between two citizens of the United States
in Turkey, or a citizen of the United States and a
subject of Austria, France, or Great Britain?
As to
these important questions, the treaty is either silent
or obscure. What are the "causes in which the sum
(demanded) exceeds five hundred piastres," and which
are to be "subinitted to the Sublime Porte to be de-
cided according to the laws of equity and justice?"
Are these causes between citizens of the United States
or between citizens of the United States and other
Franks, or causes of the class described in a preced-
ing sentence, that is, between Americans and subjects
of the Porte? All that, in the language of the treaty,
is a matter of construction, with much margin for
controversy.

169. As to all civil affairs to which no subject of Turkey is a party, Americans are wholly exempt from the local jurisdiction; and in civil matters, as well as criminal, Americans in Turkey are entitled to the benefit of "the usage observed toward other Franks."

Construction of 170. The "causes" spoken of in the second sentence of the fourth article are of the same nature, as to parties, as the "litigations and disputes" mentioned in the first sentence, that is, between citizens of the United States and subjects of the Porte; the meaning of which is, that causes between such parties, under five hundred piastres in amount, are to be decided by

the ordinary local magistrates, assisted by the dragoman, and causes above that amount, by the Porte itself, that is, the Sultan or his appropriate minister, with intervention of the minister or consul of the United States. The phrase in the second article engages that citizens of the United States in Turkey shall not be "treated in any way contrary to established usages." The "established usages" are the absolute exemption of all Franks, in controversies among themselves, from the local jurisdiction of the Porte.

171. The general doctrine thus in force in the Levant, of the exterritoriality of foreign Christians, has given rise to a complete system of peculiar municipal and legal administration, consisting of

1. Turkish tribunals for questions between subjects of the Porte and foreign Christians;

2. Consular courts for the business of each nation of foreign Christians;

3. Trial of questions between foreign Christians of different nations in the consular court of the defendant's nation;

4. Mixed tribunals of Turkish magistrates and foreign Christians, at length substituted in part for cases between Turks and foreign Christians;

5. Finally, for causes between foreign Christians, the substitution at length of mixed tribunals in place of the separate courts,—an arrangement introduced first by the legations of Austria, Great Britain, France, and Russia, and then tacitly acceded to by. the legations of other foreign Christians.

172. Notwithstanding the apparent silence of the fourth article of the treaty upon the whole subject of the civil affairs of Americans, and the seeming refer

First treaty

ence of their crimes alone to "the usage observed toward other Franks," yet the engagement in the second article covers this ground by securing to Americans in Turkey, and consequently to the consuls of the United States, the same rights and privileges which are enjoyed by those of Austria, Great Britain, France, or Russia. This statement receives illustration from the tenor of all our treaties with the Barbary States. The earliest, that with Algiers, may be taken as a type. It provides, in article XV., as follows:1

"Any disputes or suits at law, which may take place between with Algiers. the subjects of the Regency and the citizens of the United States of North America, shall be decided by the Dey in person, and no other.

Second treaty

"Any disputes which may arise between citizens of the United States, shall be decided by the consul; as they are, in such cases, not subject to the laws of the Regency.'

12

173. The same subject is yet more comprehenwith Algiers. sively regulated in a second treaty with Algiers, as follows:

"If any of the citizens of the United States, or any persons under their protection, shall have any disputes with each other, the consul shall decide between the parties; and whenever the consul shall require any aid or assistance from the government of Algiers to enforce his decision, it shall be immediately granted to him; and if any disputes shall arise between any citizens of the United States and the citizens or subjects of any other nation having a consul or agent in Algiers, such disputes shall be settled by the consuls or agents of the respective nations; and any disputes or suits at law that may take place between any citizens of the United States and the subjects of the Regency of Algiers, shall be decided by the Dey in person, and no other."

1 Statutes at Large, vol. viii. p. 247.

2 Ibid.

3 Ibid. p. 227.

174. Similar provisions in effect, though in different Tripoli and language, occur in the two treaties with Tripoli;' and Tunis. in the two treaties with Tunis.2

Muscat.

175. Although Morocco does not stand in the Morocco and same qualified dependence on the Porte with Tripoli and Tunis, and, as formerly, the old Regency of Algiers, yet Americans are placed on the like footing there as in the States of Turkish Barbary. A similar provision exists in the treaty with the Imaum of Muscat.1

3

struction.

176. All these treaties, assuming and recognizing Rule of the same doctrine of public law, that is, the exterritoriality of Americans, and the judicial as well as diplomatic authority of American consuls, serve to construe and to explain whatever there is uncertain, obscure, or vague in the treaty with the Ottoman Porte.5

1 Statutes at Large, vol. viii. pp. 153, 216. 3 Ibid. pp. 103, 486.

2 Ibid. pp. 160, 299.
+ Ibid. p. 459.

A new treaty containing important stipulations was negotiated between the United States and Turkey, and signed at Constantinople, February 25, 1862. See Session Statutes, 2d sess. 37th Congress; also, Statutes at Large, vol. xii.

con

Treaty with

ulations.

CHAPTER VI.

DUTIES OF UNITED STATES CONSULAR OFFICERS IN

AFRICA.

Morocco.

177. It is stipulated by the nineteenth article, and Morocco; stip- the three articles following it, of the treaty1 concluded between the United States and Morocco, October 1, 1837, that if any of the citizens of the United States, or any persons under their protection, shall have any dispute with each other, the consul shall decide between the parties; and whenever the consul shall require any aid or assistance from the government of Morocco, to enforce his decisions, it shall be immediately rendered to him.

Homicide.

Decedents' tates.

es

178. If a citizen of the United States should kill or wound a Moor, or, on the contrary, if a Moor shall kill or wound a citizen of the United States, the law of the country shall take place, and equal justice shall be rendered, the consul assisting at the trial; and if any delinquent shall make his escape, the consul shall not be answerable for him in any manner whatever.

179. If an American citizen shall die in Morocco, and no will shall appear, the consul shall take possession of his effects; and if there shall be no consul, the effects shall be deposited in the hands of some 1 Statutes at Large, vol. viii. p. 486.